GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[F.U.]

Raising the age to purchase firearms will eventually be ruled unconstitutional.

For several reasons. First, in Florida you're saying 18yr old military members cannot be issued a weapon.

Second, it undermines the idea of a citizen militia. In the times the country has relied upon militia the standard is they bring their weapons with them. Well now you're taking the largest bulk of fighting age militia and preventing them from buying said weapon.

Third, the final death blow to it will be women. An 18-20yr old woman who lives alone could be targeted for stalking or rape. You're taking their ability to defend themselves completely away.

I bet you're wrong Mikey.

I bet the NRA will legally challenge the 21 minimum age as unconstitutional, and the NRA will lose.

I bet state courts and the Supreme Court understand the Second Amendment and know how to apply it to the public at large as opposed to trained members of the governmental military without conflating the two.

We'll see.

I agree, I am also betting the age change will happen on a state by state basis. I can see a day when its 21 across the board for a legal purchase age. If they could set it to 21 for handguns, than why not for long guns.
That being said I also think if they do that they should also raise the legal age to vote and join the military to 21. If they cant be trusted with a gun the cant serve nor should they be trusted to make decisions that effect our country.

[Duchess]

I've always thought it is ridiculous that they can go to war but cannot legally drink. That's just straight up dumb.

[F.U.]

I've always thought it is ridiculous that they can go to war but cannot legally drink. That's just straight up dumb.

I agree. If we are going to set a age that we, as a society, feel someone can be trusted or that we feel they are mature enough, then lets standardize it. How can they say you are mature enough to risk your life and kill people, but not mature enough to have a beer? I just don't get it.

[Duchess]

I agree. If we are going to set a age that we, as a society, feel someone can be trusted or that we feel they are mature enough, then lets standardize it. How can they say you are mature enough to risk your life and kill people, but not mature enough to have a beer? I just don't get it.

Now I'm thinking about how different people are in terms of maturity. In my life I have known 10 year olds who are more mature than 25 year olds.

I think about a data base in regards to mental health but there are so many things to consider with that too, privacy, info falling into the wrong hands, info used for nefarious purposes, stuff like that. It's not like most people will feel the information will be kept secure.

[HairOfTheDog]

I get that logic F.U.

But, maturity isn't required to risk one's life and kill people. I think maturity would actually make most individuals less inclined to do so.

That's why the minimum age to join the military is so low and high school campuses remain a major focus of military recruitment, in my opinion -- to maintain what the government considers a sufficient number of armed forces to protect our country.

The military has already had to lower the bar in terms of qualifications to maintain enough troops. There's no way they'd reduce the potential pool of service people by raising the age to 21. A lot of young men and women who consider the military as their best or only option at 18 might feel very differently by the time they turn 21. I think we'd probably see a reinstatement of the draft before a raise in the minimum service age.

Anyway, the military could probably make a strong case that an 18-year-old with a government-issued weapon who's undergone firearms training and is under constant supervision and regulations......... is different than an 18-year-old with no required training and no assured supervision going into a store and buying rifles for recreation or less innocent reasons.

[Maggot]

Isn't it that they would not be able to buy a gun but possession and buying a gun is different there are quite a few 14 yr old's that go hunting. Many own the gun they use. I think its a knee jerk policy at any rate.

[HairOfTheDog]

Isn't it that they would not be able to buy a gun but possession and buying a gun is different there are quite a few 14 yr old's that go hunting. Many own the gun they use. I think its a knee jerk policy at any rate.

That's a good question.

The Florida state law is raising the minimum age to purchase all guns, including rifles and long guns, to 21.

But, I could't find anything stipulating that it means the legal age for possession of rifles and long guns has also been raised to 21.

The existing Florida possession law (unless it's been changed too) says that one must be 18 to legally possess rifles and long guns, or 16-years-old if in the company of an adult for hunting or marksmanship competitions.

I don't agree that it's a knee-jerk change in law. The change is not only in response to the recent Parkland school shooting, but also the many many before it which have been going down for years on end.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

I disagree, it IS a knee jerk reaction. I have been looking and have not been able to find any but this one mass shooting wherein the shooter was under 21 and had legally purchased his long gun used for the crime.
I have been thinking a Lot about the under 21 deal and initially was all for the age change, however, in not finding much evidence that a legally purchased weapon by the under 21 shooter, I am having a hard time justifying stripping those folks 2a rights.
What I do find over and over is a crazy fuck of all ages given access to a weapon.
Seems to me that the fix should be applied to where the source of the most crimes: Crazy fuckers buying, crazy fuckers with access...Felons able to buy because they live somewhere that does not report to NICS...

If I missed a ton or even a qty of shooters under 21 that perchased their weapon please let me know

[HairOfTheDog]

There has been a push to raise the minimum long gun purchase age to 21 for a very long time. It didn't begin in the wake of the Parkland shooting, it was just re-invigorated when the very thing that control advocates feared would happen did happen. Nobody wants to see it happen again.

Nikolas Cruz did legally buy his AR15 at 18-years-old and killed 17 people at his former school. He would not have been able to legally purchase a handgun until he was 21 though; that disparity doesn't make any sense to a lot of us. It didn't make any sense to Trump either, according to his own oft-repeated words following the Parkland shooting. Now, of course, he seems to be backing off as the NRA attempts to sue the state of Florida for raising the long gun purchase age.

Anyway, it is true that most mass murders are committed by older adults, but the school shooters are typically younger. Aside from Cruz, I do know that the Columbine killers were too young to legally buy guns so they convinced an 18-year-old friend to purchase the long guns for them. Would they have been able to convince a 21-year-old to make an illegal straw purchase like that? I don't know, but I think it would have been less likely.

Personally, I think limiting magazine capacity has the potential to save more lives in mass shootings than raising the long gun purchase age.

I also think gun restraining orders (with due process) for people who have demonstrated violent tendencies/mental illness would also likely save more lives. Nikolas Cruz, Elliot Rodger, Kevin Neal, and others had made lots of violent threats, been reported to police by family/friends/neighbors/strangers, and been visited by police. But, they were allowed to keep their guns nonetheless and ended up carrying out mass murders with them.

Still, raising the minimum age might have saved 17 people last month and who knows how many more in the future. Plus, it just makes sense to me for the minimum age to purchase long guns to be the same as to purchase handguns.

As for the argument that a single mother under 21 will now be deprived of buying a long gun for self defense.........I don't know how many young women have actually used a long gun in self defense. Not many, I suspect. But, I can appreciate the concern for that potential and wouldn't have a problem with an exception process/application or something like that being implemented.

[Ski at 1SKY6]

I disagree, it IS a knee jerk reaction. I have been looking and have not been able to find any but this one mass shooting wherein the shooter was under 21 and had legally purchased his long gun used for the crime.
I have been thinking a Lot about the under 21 deal and initially was all for the age change, however, in not finding much evidence that a legally purchased weapon by the under 21 shooter, I am having a hard time justifying stripping those folks 2a rights.
What I do find over and over is a crazy fuck of all ages given access to a weapon.
Seems to me that the fix should be applied to where the source of the most crimes: Crazy fuckers buying, crazy fuckers with access...Felons able to buy because they live somewhere that does not report to NICS...

If I missed a ton or even a qty of shooters under 21 that perchased their weapon please let me know

Problem is that 2a doesn't stipulate that a citizen must be of sound mind to own a gun. It does not mention an age requirement or suggests any limits in one's rights to bear arms. " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

[HairOfTheDog]

The nationwide #ENOUGH student walk-out in protest of U.S. gun laws is underway.

These kids are not giving up.

Thousands of them will be voting in November's mid-term congressional elections, something they continue to point out when interviewed.

[HairOfTheDog]

Yesterday, a high school teacher in Seaside, California accidentally fired a gun in a classroom. Three students were injured. Fortunately, none of the students was shot or seriously injured. It could have been much worse.


^ Dennis Alexander was teaching an Administration of Justice class and talking about gun safety when he accidentally fired his gun into the ceiling. Alexander is also a reserve officer for the Sand City Police Department.

He's been placed on administrative leave from his teaching and policing positions and an investigation is underway.

http://www.ksbw.com/article/seaside-high...s/19426017

[Duchess]

*sigh*

[pyropappy]

The entire progressive line of bullshit is specious. The second amendment is an inalienable RIGHT! Aside: Inalienable - unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

The fact is, our founders, did not write the second amendment for hunting, self defense nor sport shooting. It was written to protect us from an over reaching government, period end of argument.

Progressives are the crux of the problem; they are slowly rewriting history. Why I ask? Again the answer is simple. They believe in government not people. You see progressives don't believe in God; so where do the rights come from? To them they are privileges not rights and government can revoke them. They know to take total control they must disarm the people just like every dictator in history.

Again I ask, if Trump is the dictator you claim does it make sense to disarm?

Any law passed is unconstitutional, including the 1934 National Fire Arms Act. The founders intended the people to have the same weapons as the government to protect them from that over reaching government. Any push is proof the government is out of control as our founders feared.

Now, it is a shame people get killed by criminals, but the weapon is not the problem. Easy solution, convict the bastard of murder and take his life so he can not do it again! Guess what, that is in the constitution too. No other law is required. Start making examples of these douche bags so the next one will think again. Problem solved.

What you progressives really need is a fucking history lesson.

[HairOfTheDog]

^ That's your interpretation of the founders' intentions and application of the Second Amendment pappy.

The 'inalienable' right does not guarantee or specify the bearing of any and all arms, accessories, and ammunition. It just doesn't. It does, however, guarantee an inalienable right for 'well-regulated' militias to bear arms. And, since every citizen (except those banned for cause by law) maintains the right to bear arms to this day, it stands to reason the Supreme Court views all citizens as members of a well-regulated militia.

Outside that, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation. Do you believe the Supreme Court has the power to decide constitutionality of laws?

[pyropappy]

^ That's your interpretation of the founders' intentions and application of the Second Amendment pappy.

The 'inalienable' right does not guarantee or specify the bearing of any and all arms, accessories, and ammunition. It just doesn't. It does, however, guarantee an inalienable right for 'well-regulated' militias to bear arms. And, since every citizen (except those banned for cause by law) maintains the right to bear arms to this day, it stands to reason the Supreme Court views all citizens as members of a well-regulated militia.

Outside that, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation. Do you believe the Supreme Court has the power to decide constitutionality of laws?

Not my interpretation; that is the founders interpretation. Read their papers and letters, they discussed the issue restlessly. Yes, the constitution gives the court the power, but they are human and get it wrong from time to time. Dread Scott ring a bell?

Good luck disarming this country; there are like 500 million guns here. That's more than one per person. And when the government trys to confiscate them it will make all the school shooting look like a Girl Scout picnic.

[HairOfTheDog]

I don't want to disarm this country Pappy. I respect the Second Amendment.

None of the Founders' papers you referenced alludes to citizens having the right to bear any and all arms, accessories and ammunition.

So, when people claim that any firearm restrictions are Second Amendment violations, even though those restrictions in no way constitute disarming the country, it's simply their interpretation.

The Founding Fathers were human, just like Supreme Court Justices. Perhaps the Founders got it wrong in not being more specific in writing the Second Amendment. You're human. Perhaps your interpretation is wrong and simply absolutist wishful thinking.

For practical purposes, that doesn't really matter. Human and flawed as the Supreme Court Justices surely are, the power to interpret constitutionality of laws belongs to them. And, they've ruled many firearm restrictions to be constitutional and ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms for 'self defense, but not without limitations.'

[Duchess]

Good luck disarming this country; there are like 500 million guns here. That's more than one per person. And when the government trys to confiscate them it will make all the school shooting look like a Girl Scout picnic.

Who the hell is talking about disarming this country? You are and every other gun nut I run across. Many of you spent 8 years screaming that Obama was coming to get your guns. You still have your guns, Pappy? You sound nuts, you goddamn fruit. Why the hell should I trust your judgement to have guns safely in your home when you say the kind of crap you do. "Try to take our guns and we'll make a school shooting look like a girl scout picnic". Asshole.

[pyropappy]

Who the hell is talking about disarming this country? You are and every other gun nut I run across. Many of you spent 8 years screaming that Obama was coming to get your guns. You still have your guns, Pappy? You sound nuts, you goddamn fruit. Why the hell should I trust your judgement to have guns safely in your home when you say the kind of crap you do. "Try to take our guns and we'll make a school shooting look like a girl scout picnic". Asshole.

Fuck you, you are an idiot. Reread my post; quit hearing what you want nd exercise your brain once in a while.

[Duchess]

I could hardly wait to see what you came back with. You didn't let me down.